Search: charitable trust | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

4 results for “charitable trust”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur20 Chandigarh12 Chennai10 Amritsar7 Mumbai7 Delhi7 Indore7 Hyderabad6 Kolkata5 Pune5 Bangalore4 Ahmedabad4 Lucknow3 Visakhapatnam2 Guwahati1 Cuttack1 Dehradun1 Agra1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 69A11 Section 2507 Section 105 Demonetization3 Section 143(2)2 Section 12A2 Section 112 Section 11(2)2 Section 11(7)2 Cash Deposit

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

2

Addition to Income2

Natural Justice2

charitable activity carried out by it. Further, the assessee being a registered trust u/s 12A of the Act, the AO held that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act except claim u/s 10(1) & 10(23C) as per section 11(7) of the Act and accordingly concluded that exemption claimed by the assessee

GURUPADALING VIKRAKTAMATH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri.Deepak Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period into the SB account No.62180841762 maintained with the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad now the State Bank of India, Nehrugunj Branch, Kalaburagi. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the bank account with SBI bearing account No.62180841762 is actually belonging to the Peethadipathi of Gurupadalingeshwar Virakt Math, a religious and charitable trust

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 819/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. Venugopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 250Section 69A

Charitable Trust (280 ITR 357) (Mad) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial

SRI. GURU THIPPERUDRASWAMY DEVASTHANA ,CHITRADURGA vs. ITO, WARD-1 EXEMPTIONS,, HUBLI

In the result, ground number 1 – 9 are allowed with above directions

ITA 2249/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriV. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Charitable institutions and Hindu Religious Institutions as per Notification No. RD 87 MUAABI 2012, Bangalore dated 29.09.2012 on the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 4 of 9 13. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the appellant is exempted from income-tax as per section 10(23BBA) of the Act on the facts